section 7 - mema district 7 regional hazard mitigation … · final 7:6 hazard mitigation plan: a...

SECTION 7 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

MEMA District 7 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan FINAL

7:1

This section of the Plan discusses the capability of the MEMA District 7 Region to implement hazard mitigation activities. It consists of the following four subsections:

➢ 7.1 What is a Capability Assessment?

➢ 7.2 Conducting the Capability Assessment

➢ 7.3 Capability Assessment Findings

➢ 7.4 Conclusions on Local Capability

7.1 WHAT IS A CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT? The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs, or projects.1 As in any planning process, it is important to try to establish which goals, objectives, and/or actions are feasible based on an understanding of the organizational capacity of those agencies or departments tasked with their implementation. A capability assessment helps to determine which mitigation actions are practical, and likely to be implemented over time, given a local government’s planning and regulatory framework, level of administrative and technical support, amount of fiscal resources, and current political climate. A capability assessment has two primary components: 1) an inventory of a local jurisdiction’s relevant plans, ordinances, or programs already in place and 2) an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. Careful examination of local capabilities will detect any existing gaps, shortfalls, or weaknesses with ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community hazard vulnerability. A capability assessment also highlights the positive mitigation measures already in place or being implemented at the local government level, which should continue to be supported and enhanced through future mitigation efforts. The capability assessment completed for the MEMA District 7 Region serves as a critical planning step and an integral part of the foundation for designing an effective hazard mitigation strategy. Coupled with the Risk Assessment, the Capability Assessment helps identify and target meaningful mitigation actions for incorporation in the Mitigation Strategy portion of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It not only helps establish the goals and objectives for the region to pursue under this Plan, but it also ensures that those goals and objectives are realistically achievable under given local conditions.

1 While the Final Rule for implementing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 does not require a local capability assessment to be

completed for local hazard mitigation plans, it is a critical step in developing a mitigation strategy that meets the needs of the

region while taking into account their own unique abilities. The Rule does state that a community’s mitigation strategy should be

“based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools”

(44 CFR, Part 201.6(c)(3)).

SECTION 7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT


7:2

7.2 CONDUCTING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT In order to facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities within the MEMA District 7 counties, a detailed Capability Assessment Survey was completed for each of the participating jurisdictions based on the information found in existing hazard mitigation plans and local government websites. The survey questionnaire compiled information on a variety of “capability indicators” such as existing local plans, policies, programs, or ordinances that contribute to and/or hinder the region’s ability to implement hazard mitigation actions. Other indicators included information related to the region’s fiscal, administrative, and technical capabilities, such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources for mitigation purposes. The current political climate, an important consideration for any local planning or decision-making process, was also evaluated with respect to hazard mitigation. At a minimum, survey results provide an extensive inventory of existing local plans, ordinances, programs, and resources that are in place or under development in addition to their overall effect on hazard loss reduction. However, the survey instrument can also serve to identify gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts that counties and local jurisdictions can recast as opportunities for specific actions to be proposed as part of the hazard mitigation strategy. The information collected in the survey questionnaire was incorporated into a database for further analysis. A general scoring methodology was then applied to quantify each jurisdiction’s overall capability.2 According to the scoring system, each capability indicator was assigned a point value based on its relevance to hazard mitigation. Using this scoring methodology, a total score and an overall capability rating of “high,” “moderate,” or “limited” could be determined according to the total number of points received. These classifications are designed to provide nothing more than a general assessment of local government capability. The results of this capability assessment provide critical information for developing an effective and meaningful mitigation strategy.

7.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this Plan to provide insight into the relevant capacity of the MEMA District 7 Region to implement hazard mitigation activities. All information is based upon the review of existing hazard mitigation plans and local government websites through the Capability Assessment Survey and input provided by local government officials during meetings of the MEMA District 7 Region Hazard Mitigation Council. In addition to the local capabilities that are outlined in the following pages, it is also important to note that during the plan development process, the HMC utilized a number of different sources outside of their own local government resources to incorporate into the plan. These other plans, studies, reports, and technical information came from several various sources and were instrumental in helping to provide key information such as hazard histories, spatial high-risk areas, and vulnerability information. For example, at the state level, the Mississippi State Hazard Mitigation Plan provided critical data to supplement the risk assessment of several hazards, most prominently, the dam/levee failure hazard. Moreover, technical information from private sector sources such as the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment were used to improve the HMC’s understanding of spatial areas considered to be at the highest risk to this hazard. Furthermore, a great deal of information was gathered from federal sources

2 The scoring methodology used to quantify and rank the region’s capability can be found in Appendix B.



7:3

including the National Climatic Data Center which provided hazard history information and the Federal Emergency Management Agency which tracks a great deal of data on all hazards, perhaps notably, on flooding and insurance claims. These plans, studies, and technical information were critical in the development of this plan and were used in many areas of the planning process, especially the risk assessment. The use of disparate information from a number of different sources helped the HMC compare data across hazards and gain a better understanding of overall risk.

7.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances, and programs that demonstrate a local jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, development, and redevelopment in a responsible manner while maintaining the general welfare of the community. It includes emergency response and mitigation planning, comprehensive land use planning, and transportation planning; the enforcement of zoning or subdivision ordinances and building codes that regulate how land is developed and structures are built; as well as protecting environmental, historic, and cultural resources in the community. Although some conflicts can arise, these planning initiatives generally present significant opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision-making process. This assessment is designed to provide a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools and programs that are in place or under development for the MEMA District 7 Region along with their potential effect on loss reduction. This information will help identify opportunities to address existing gaps, weaknesses, or conflicts with other initiatives in addition to integrating the implementation of this Plan with existing planning mechanisms where appropriate. Table 7.1 provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances, and programs already in place or under development for the MEMA District 7 Region. A checkmark (✓) indicates that the given item is currently in place and being implemented. An asterisk (*) indicates that the given item is currently being developed for future implementation. A dagger (†) indicates that the given item is administered for that municipality by the county. Each of these local plans, ordinances, and programs should be considered available mechanisms for incorporating the requirements of the MEMA District 7 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

TABLE 7.1: RELEVANT PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND PROGRAMS

Planning/Regulatory Tool

AD

AM

S C

OU

NTY

N

atch

ez

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

Hazard Mitigation Plan ✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † † ✓ † ✓ † † †

Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)



7:4


AD

AM

S C

OU

NTY

N

atch

ez

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

Comprehensive Land Use Plan ✓ ✓ † ✓ ✓ † ✓ † † ✓

Floodplain Management Plan/Flood Mitigation Plan

✓

Open Space Management Plan (Parks & Rec/Greenway Plan)

Stormwater Management Plan/Ordinance

✓ ✓

Natural Resource Protection Plan

Flood Response Plan

Emergency Operations Plan ✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † † ✓ † ✓ † † †

Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP Accreditation)

✓ †

Continuity of Operations Plan ✓ †

Evacuation Plan

Disaster Recovery Plan

Capital Improvements Plan

Economic Development Plan ✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † † ✓ † ✓ † † †

Historic Preservation Plan

Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Zoning Ordinance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Subdivision Ordinance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Unified Development Ordinance

Post-Disaster Redevelopment/ Reconstruction Plan/Ordinance

Building Code ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Fire Code ✓ ✓ ✓

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓



7:5


AD

AM

S C

OU

NTY

N

atch

ez

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

NFIP Community Rating System (CRS Program)

A more detailed discussion on the region’s planning and regulatory capability follows.

7.3.2 Emergency Management Hazard mitigation is widely recognized as one of the four primary phases of emergency management. The three other phases include preparedness, response, and recovery. In reality, each phase is interconnected with hazard mitigation, as Figure 7.1 suggests. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation practices are most often implemented before disaster strikes, such as the elevation of flood prone structures or the continuous enforcement of policies that prevent and regulate development that is vulnerable to hazards due to its location, design, or other characteristics. Mitigation opportunities will also be presented during immediate preparedness or response activities, such as installing storm shutters in advance of a hurricane, and certainly during the long-term recovery and redevelopment process following a hazard event.

FIGURE 7.1: THE FOUR PHASES OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Planning for each phase is a critical part of a comprehensive emergency management program and a key to the successful implementation of hazard mitigation actions. As a result, the Capability Assessment Survey asked several questions across a range of emergency management plans in order to assess the MEMA District 7 Region’s willingness to plan and their level of technical planning proficiency.



7:6

Hazard Mitigation Plan: A hazard mitigation plan represents a community’s blueprint for how it intends to reduce the impact of natural and human-caused hazards on people and the built environment. The essential elements of a hazard mitigation plan include a risk assessment, capability assessment, and mitigation strategy.

➢ Each of the nine counties participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has previously adopted a hazard mitigation plan. Each participating municipality was included in its respective county’s plan.

Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA): A THIRA is a comprehensive risk assessment process that helps a community understand its risks and estimate capability requirements. Outputs of the THIRA process can inform a variety of disaster preparedness and emergency management efforts, including emergency operations planning, mutual aid agreements, and hazard mitigation planning.

➢ None of the counties or municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has completed a THIRA process. The counties should consider conducting a THIRA process to improve their understanding of risks and the resources required to prepare for those risks.

Disaster Recovery Plan: A disaster recovery plan serves to guide the physical, social, environmental, and economic recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. In many instances, hazard mitigation principles and practices are incorporated into local disaster recovery plans with the intent of capitalizing on opportunities to break the cycle of repetitive disaster losses. Disaster recovery plans can also lead to the preparation of disaster redevelopment policies and ordinances to be enacted following a hazard event.

➢ None of the counties or municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has adopted a disaster recovery plan. The counties should consider developing a plan to guide the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster.

Emergency Operations Plan: An emergency operations plan outlines responsibilities and the means by which resources are deployed during and following an emergency or disaster.

➢ Each of the nine counties participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan maintains an emergency operations plan through their respective County Emergency Management Agency. Each participating municipality is also covered by its respective county’s plan.

Continuity of Operations Plan: A continuity of operations plan establishes a chain of command, line of succession, and plans for backup or alternate emergency facilities in case of an extreme emergency or disaster event.

➢ Lincoln County and the City of Brookhaven are the only participating jurisdictions that have adopted a continuity of operations plan. The other counties should consider developing a plan to ensure the execution of essential functions during emergencies or disaster events.

Flood Response Plan: A flood response plan establishes procedures for responding to a flood emergency including coordinating and facilitating resources to minimize the impacts of flood.



7:7

➢ None of the counties or municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has adopted a flood response plan.

Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP): EMAP is the voluntary standards, assessment, and accreditation program for disaster preparedness programs. It provides emergency management programs the opportunity to be recognized for compliance with industry standards, to demonstrate accountability, and to focus attention on areas and issues where resources are needed.

➢ Lincoln County and the City of Brookhaven are the only participating jurisdictions that have earned EMAP accreditation.

7.3.3 General Planning

The implementation of hazard mitigation activities often involves agencies and individuals beyond the emergency management profession. Stakeholders may include local planners, public works officials, economic development specialists, and others. In many instances, concurrent local planning efforts will help to achieve or complement hazard mitigation goals, even though they are not designed as such. Therefore, the Capability Assessment Survey also asked questions regarding general planning capabilities and the degree to which hazard mitigation is integrated into other on-going planning efforts in the MEMA District 7 Region. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: A comprehensive land use plan establishes the overall vision for what a community wants to be and serves as a guide for future governmental decision making. Typically a comprehensive plan contains sections on demographic conditions, land use, transportation elements, and community facilities. Given the broad nature of the plan and its regulatory standing in many communities, the integration of hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan can enhance the likelihood of achieving risk reduction goals, objectives, and actions.

➢ Pike County and Jefferson County are the only participating counties that have adopted a county comprehensive plan. The Pike County plan also includes the City of Magnolia, City of McComb, Town of Osyka, and Town of Summit and the Jefferson County Plan also includes the City of Fayette.

➢ Several of the municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan have also adopted municipal comprehensive plans, including the City of Natchez, City of Brookhaven, City of McComb, and Town of Woodville.

Capital Improvements Plan: A capital improvements plan guides the scheduling of spending on public improvements. A capital improvements plan can serve as an important mechanism for guiding future development away from identified hazard areas. Limiting public spending in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term mitigation actions available to local governments.

➢ None of the counties or municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has adopted a capital improvements plan.

Historic Preservation Plan: A historic preservation plan is intended to preserve historic structures or districts within a community. An often overlooked aspect of the historic preservation plan is the assessment of buildings and sites located in areas subject to natural hazards and the identification of ways to reduce future damages. This may involve retrofitting or relocation techniques that account for



7:8

the need to protect buildings that do not meet current building standards or are within a historic district that cannot easily be relocated out of harm’s way.

➢ None of the counties or municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has a historic preservation plan. However, the City of Natchez and City of McComb have adopted historic preservation ordinances. The Town of Woodville has also published historic preservation guidelines.

Zoning Ordinance: Zoning represents the primary means by which land use is controlled by local governments. As part of a community’s police power, zoning is used to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of those in a given jurisdiction that maintains zoning authority. A zoning ordinance is the mechanism through which zoning is typically implemented. Since zoning regulations enable municipal governments to limit the type and density of development, a zoning ordinance can serve as a powerful tool when applied in identified hazard areas.

➢ None of the counties participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has adopted a zoning ordinance.

➢ Several of the municipalities participating have adopted zoning ordinances, including the City of Natchez, Town of Monticello, City of Brookhaven, City of McComb, and the Town of Woodville.

Subdivision Ordinance: A subdivision ordinance is intended to regulate the development of residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses, including associated public infrastructure, as land is subdivided into buildable lots for sale or future development. Subdivision design that accounts for natural hazards can dramatically reduce the exposure of future development.

➢ Lincoln County is the only participating county that has adopted a subdivision ordinance.

➢ Several of the participating municipalities have adopted subdivision ordinances, including the City of Natchez, Town of Monticello, City of Brookhaven, City of Magnolia, and City of McComb.

Building Codes, Permitting, and Inspections: Building codes regulate construction standards. In many communities, permits, and inspections are required for new construction. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes (that account for hazard risk), the type of permitting process required both before and after a disaster, and the enforcement of inspection protocols all affect the level of hazard risk faced by a community.

➢ Effective August 1, 2014, the State of Mississippi has adopted as a minimum any of the last three editions (2009, 2012, 2015) of the International Building Code and any additional codes as adopted by the Mississippi Building Code Council. Jurisdictions had 120 days to opt out of adoptions. Additionally, all state buildings, leased or owned, must meet the requirements set forth in the 2012 International Building Code.

➢ None of the counties participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan has adopted a building code.

➢ The following participating municipalities have adopted building codes: City of Natchez, City of Brookhaven, City of McComb, and Town of Woodville.

The adoption and enforcement of building codes by local jurisdictions is routinely assessed through the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) program developed by the Insurance Services



7:9

Office, Inc. (ISO).3 In Mississippi, the Mississippi State Rating Bureau assesses the building codes in effect in a particular community and how the community enforces its building codes with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. The results of BCEGS assessments are routinely provided to ISO’s member private insurance companies, which in turn may offer ratings credits for new buildings constructed in communities with strong BCEGS classifications. The concept is that communities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should experience fewer disaster-related losses and, as a result, should have lower insurance rates. In conducting the assessment, ISO collects information related to personnel qualification and continuing education as well as the number of inspections performed per day. This type of information combined with local building codes is used to determine a grade for that jurisdiction. The grades range from 1 to 10 with a BCEGS grade of 1 representing exemplary commitment to building code enforcement and a grade of 10 indicating less than minimum recognized protection.

7.3.4 Floodplain Management Flooding represents the greatest natural hazard facing the nation. At the same time, the tools available to reduce the impacts associated with flooding are among the most developed when compared to other hazard-specific mitigation techniques. In addition to approaches that cut across hazards such as education, outreach, and the training of local officials, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) contains specific regulatory measures that enable government officials to determine where and how growth occurs relative to flood hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary for local governments; however, program participation is strongly encouraged by FEMA as a first step for implementing and sustaining an effective hazard mitigation program. It is therefore used as part of this assessment as a key indicator for measuring local capability. In order for a county or municipality to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance that requires jurisdictions to follow established minimum building standards in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by a 100-year flood event and that new development in the floodplain will not exacerbate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. A key service provided by the NFIP is the mapping of identified flood hazard areas. Once completed, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices, and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are an important source of information to educate residents, government officials, and the private sector about the likelihood of flooding in their community. Table 7.2 provides NFIP policy and claim information for each participating jurisdiction in the MEMA District 7 Region. Each of the jurisdictions that are participating in the development of this plan that also participate in the NFIP are committed to maintaining and enforcing their floodplain management ordinances and regulating new development in floodplains.

3 Participation in BCEGS is voluntary and may be declined by local governments if they do not wish to have their local building

codes evaluated.



7:10

TABLE 7.2: NFIP POLICY AND CLAIM INFORMATION

Jurisdiction

Date Joined NFIP

Current Effective Map

Date

NFIP Policies in Force

Insurance in Force

Closed Claims

Total Payments to

Date

ADAMS COUNTY† 09/29/89 06/16/11 30 $6,322,400 97 $1,367,517

Natchez 06/01/78 06/16/11 34 $9,803,100 23 $381,250

AMITE COUNTY† 08/01/86 09/29/10 18 $3,595,700 0 $0

Gloster 06/17/86 09/29/10 0 $0 0 $0

Liberty 09/29/86 09/29/10 0 $0 2 $3,416

FRANKLIN COUNTY† 12/13/12 01/06/10(M) 10 $849,400 1 $6,854

Bude* -- -- -- -- -- --

Meadville* -- -- -- -- -- --

Roxie 06/17/86 01/06/10(M) 1 $175,000 0 $0

JEFFERSON COUNTY† 07/03/90 09/29/10 6 $1,750,000 84 $917,584

Fayette 09/29/10 09/29/10 0 $0 0 $0

LAWRENCE COUNTY† 09/15/89 06/02/11 50 $6,992,300 15 $327,839

Monticello 04/02/86 06/02/11 17 $4,137,100 10 $136,891

New Hebron 08/05/85 06/02/11(M) 0 $0 1 $250

Silver Creek 06/02/11 06/02/11(M) 0 $0 0 $0

LINCOLN COUNTY†* -- -- -- -- -- --

Brookhaven 07/18/77 02/03/10 68 $13,466,000 12 $50,445

PIKE COUNTY† 09/15/89 06/18/10 75 $14,498,900 67 $3,021,753

Magnolia 07/01/87 06/18/10 2 $1,323,400 7 $124,712

McComb 08/01/79 06/18/10 45 $11,809,700 29 $391,370

Osyka 10/16/12 06/18/10 1 $350,000 0 $0

Summit* -- -- -- -- -- --

WALTHALL COUNTY† 08/01/86 07/06/10 79 $11,710,400 96 $1,554,515

Tylertown 09/30/88 07/06/10 17 $4,400,000 53 $803,872

WILKINSON COUNTY† 07/16/90 04/19/10 86 $13,223,500 1,586 $20,305,199

Centreville 03/12/10 (NSFHA) 0 $0 0 $0



7:11

Jurisdiction

Date Joined NFIP

Current Effective Map

Date

NFIP Policies in Force

Insurance in Force

Closed Claims

Total Payments to

Date

Crosby 02/01/86 04/19/10 3 $673,000 2 $15,459

Woodville 04/19/10 04/19/10 1 $107,100 0 $0

†Includes unincorporated areas of county only *Community does not participate in the NFIP (M) – No Elevation Determined, All Zone A, C and X NSFHA – No Special Flood Hazard Area - All Zone C Source: NFIP Community Status information as of 8/17/2017; NFIP claims and policy information as of 4/30/2017

All jurisdictions listed above that are participants in the NFIP will continue to comply with all required provisions of the program and will work to adequately comply in the future utilizing a number of strategies. For example, the jurisdictions will coordinate with MEMA and FEMA to develop maps and regulations related to special flood hazard areas within their jurisdictional boundaries and, through a consistent monitoring process, will design and improve their floodplain management program in a way that reduces the risk of flooding to people and property. As noted above, several jurisdictions are not participants in the NFIP. The Town of Summit does not participate because it currently does not have any identified flood hazard areas within its jurisdiction, so most residents would be unlikely to purchase flood insurance. Lincoln County, Town of Bude, and Town of Meadville also do not participate in the NFIP due to a lack of capacity or resources to properly administer and maintain the program. Community Rating System: An additional indicator of floodplain management capability is the active participation of local jurisdictions in the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is an incentive-based program that encourages counties and municipalities to undertake defined flood mitigation activities that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP by adding extra local measures to provide protection from flooding. All of the 18 creditable CRS mitigation activities are assigned a range of point values. As points are accumulated and reach identified thresholds, communities can apply for an improved CRS class rating. Class ratings, which range from 10 to 1, are tied to flood insurance premium reductions as shown in Table 7.3. As class rating improves (the lower the number the better), the percent reduction in flood insurance premiums for NFIP policyholders in that community increases.



7:12

TABLE 7.3: CRS PREMIUM DISCOUNTS, BY CLASS

CRS Class Premium Reduction

1 45%

2 40%

3 35%

4 30%

5 25%

6 20%

7 15%

8 10%

9 5%

10 0

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Community participation in the CRS is voluntary. Any community that is in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS classification better than class 10. The CRS application process has been greatly simplified over the past several years based on community comments. Changes were made with the intent to make the CRS more user-friendly and make extensive technical assistance available for communities who request it.

➢ None of the counties or municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan participates in the CRS. Participation the CRS program should be considered as a mitigation action by the jurisdictions currently participating in the NFIP. The program would be most beneficial to Wilkinson County, Walthall County, Pike County, Brookhaven, and Lawrence County, which each have 50 or more NFIP policies in force.

Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: A flood damage prevention ordinance establishes minimum building standards in the floodplain with the intent to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions.

➢ All communities participating in the NFIP are required to adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance. All counties and municipalities participating in this multi-jurisdictional plan, with the exception of Town of Bude, Town of Meadville, Lincoln County, and Town of Summit, also participate in the NFIP and they all have adopted flood damage prevention regulations.

Floodplain Management Plan: A floodplain management plan (or a flood mitigation plan) provides a framework for action regarding corrective and preventative measures to reduce flood-related impacts.

➢ The City of Brookhaven is the only participating jurisdiction that has adopted a floodplain management plan to help prevent damages associated with flooding and flood loss.

Open Space Management Plan: An open space management plan is designed to preserve, protect, and restore largely undeveloped lands in their natural state and to expand or connect areas in the public domain such as parks, greenways, and other outdoor recreation areas. In many instances, open space management practices are consistent with the goals of reducing hazard losses, such as the preservation of wetlands or other flood-prone areas in their natural state in perpetuity.



7:13

➢ None of the participating counties or municipalities has adopted an open space management plan.

Stormwater Management Plan: A stormwater management plan is designed to address flooding associated with stormwater runoff. The stormwater management plan is typically focused on design and construction measures that are intended to reduce the impact of more frequently occurring minor urban flooding.

➢ None of the participating counties has adopted a stormwater management plan or ordinance.

➢ The City of Brookhaven has adopted a local stormwater pollution prevention ordinance and the City of McComb has adopted a local stormwater detention ordinance.

7.3.6 Administrative and Technical Capability The ability of a local government to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies, and programs is directly tied to its ability to direct staff time and resources for that purpose. Administrative capability can be evaluated by determining how mitigation-related activities are assigned to local departments and if there are adequate personnel resources to complete these activities. The degree of intergovernmental coordination among departments will also affect administrative capability for the implementation and success of proposed mitigation activities. Technical capability can generally be evaluated by assessing the level of knowledge and technical expertise of local government employees, such as personnel skilled in using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze and assess community hazard vulnerability. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on administrative and technical capability through the identification of available staff and personnel resources. Table 7.4 provides a summary of the Capability Assessment Survey results for the MEMA District 7 Region with regard to relevant staff and personnel resources. A checkmark (✓) indicates the presence of a staff member(s) in that jurisdiction with the specified knowledge or skill. A dagger (†) indicates a county-level staff member(s) provides the specified knowledge or skill to that municipality.

TABLE 7.4: RELEVANT STAFF/PERSONNEL RESOURCES

Staff/Personnel Resource

AD

AM

S C

OU

NTY

N

atch

ez

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

Planners with knowledge of land development/land management practices

✓ ✓

Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓



7:14

Staff/Personnel Resource

AD

AM

S C

OU

NTY

N

atch

ez

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human-caused hazards

✓ ✓

Emergency Manager ✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † † ✓ † ✓ † † †

Floodplain Manager ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ † ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Land Surveyors ✓

Scientists familiar with the hazards of the community

✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † † ✓ † ✓ † † †

Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards

✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ † † † † ✓ † ✓ † † †

Personnel skilled in GIS and/or Hazus

✓ † ✓ † † ✓ † † † ✓ † ✓ †

Resource development staff or grant writers

Credit for having a floodplain manager was given to those jurisdictions that have a flood damage prevention ordinance, and therefore an appointed floodplain administrator, regardless of whether the appointee was dedicated solely to floodplain management. Credit was given for having a scientist familiar with the hazards of the community if a jurisdiction has a Cooperative Extension Service or Soil and Water Conservation Department. Credit was also given for having staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards if a staff member from the jurisdiction was a participant on the existing hazard mitigation plan’s planning committee.

7.3.7 Fiscal Capability The ability of a local government to take action is often closely associated with the amount of money available to implement policies and projects. This may take the form of outside grant funding awards or locally-based revenue and financing. The costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation vary widely. In some cases, policies are tied primarily to staff time or administrative costs associated with the creation and monitoring of a given program. In other cases, direct expenses are linked to an actual project, such as the acquisition of flood-prone homes, which can require a substantial commitment from local, state, and federal funding sources. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on the region’s fiscal capability through the identification of locally available financial resources. Table 7.5 provides a summary of the results for the MEMA District 7 Region with regard to relevant fiscal resources. A checkmark (✓) indicates that the given fiscal resource has previously been used to implement hazard mitigation actions. A dagger (†) indicates that the given fiscal resource is locally



7:15

available for hazard mitigation purposes (including match funds for state and federal mitigation grant funds).

TABLE 7.5: RELEVANT FISCAL RESOURCES

Fiscal Tool/Resource A

DA

MS

CO

UN

TY

Nat

che

z

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

Capital Improvement Programming

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

† ✓ † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † ✓ † † † † † † † †

Special Purpose Taxes (or taxing districts)

Gas/Electric Utility Fees

Water/Sewer Fees †

Stormwater Utility Fees

Development Impact Fees

General Obligation, Revenue, and/or Special Tax Bonds

Partnering Arrangements or Intergovernmental Agreements

✓ † † ✓ † † ✓

Other: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants, Homeland Security Grants, USDA Rural Development Agency Grants, and US Economic Development Administration Grants

✓ ✓ † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † ✓ † † †

7.3.8 Political Capability One of the most difficult capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact meaningful policies and projects designed to reduce the impact of future hazard events. Hazard mitigation may not be a local priority or may conflict with or be seen as an impediment to other goals of the community, such as growth and economic development. Therefore, the local political climate must be considered in designing mitigation strategies as it could be the most difficult hurdle to overcome in accomplishing their adoption and implementation. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on political capability of the MEMA District 7 Region. Previous hazard mitigation plans were reviewed for general examples of local political capability, such as guiding development away from identified hazard areas, restricting public investments or capital improvements within hazard areas, or enforcing local development standards



7:16

that go beyond minimum state or federal requirements (i.e., building codes, floodplain management, etc.).

➢ The previous hazard mitigation plans identified existing ordinances that address natural hazards or are related to hazard mitigation, such as emergency management, zoning, subdivision regulations, comprehensive land use plans, and flood damage prevention ordinances.

➢ During the months immediately following a disaster, local public opinion in the region is more likely to shift in support of hazard mitigation efforts.

Table 7.6 provides a summary of the results for the MEMA District 7 Region with regard to political capability. A checkmark (✓) indicates the expected degree of political support by local elected officials in terms of adopting/funding information.

TABLE 7.6: LOCAL POLITICAL SUPPORT

Political Support

AD

AM

S C

OU

NTY

N

atch

ez

AM

ITE

CO

UN

TY

Glo

ste

r

Lib

ert

y

FRA

NK

LIN

CO

UN

TY

Bu

de

Me

advi

lle

Ro

xie

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

Faye

tte

LAW

REN

CE

CO

UN

TY

Mo

nti

cello

Ne

w H

eb

ron

Silv

er

Cre

ek

LIN

CO

LN C

OU

NTY

Bro

okh

ave

n

PIK

E C

OU

NTY

Mag

no

lia

McC

om

b

Osy

ka

Sum

mit

WA

LTH

ALL

CO

UN

TY

Tyle

rto

wn

WIL

KIN

SON

CO

UN

TY

Ce

ntr

evi

lle

Cro

sby

Wo

od

ville

Limited ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

High ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

7.4 CONCLUSIONS ON LOCAL CAPABILITY In order to form meaningful conclusions on the assessment of local capability, a quantitative scoring methodology was designed and applied to the results of the Capability Assessment Survey. The maximum number of points possible (one, two, or three) was assigned to each plan, ordinance, program, or resource based on its relevance to hazard mitigation. If a plan, ordinance, program, or resource was under development or administered for a municipality at the county-level, one point became the highest score possible. The maximum total number of points possible under the scoring methodology is 86, and three categories were established to classify capability level as limited (0-24 points), moderate (25-49 points), or high (50-86 points). This methodology, further described in Appendix B, attempts to assess the overall level of capability of the MEMA District 7 Region to implement hazard mitigation actions. The overall capability to implement hazard mitigation actions varies among the participating jurisdictions. For planning and regulatory capability, the jurisdictions are in the limited range. The administrative and technical capabilities vary from limited to moderate among the jurisdictions with larger jurisdictions generally having greater staff and technical resources. All of the jurisdictions are in the limited range for fiscal capability.



7:17

Table 7.7 shows the results of the capability assessment using the designed scoring methodology. The capability score is based solely on the information found in existing hazard mitigation plans and readily available on the jurisdictions’ government websites. This information was reviewed by all jurisdictions and each jurisdiction provided feedback on the information included in the capability assessment. Local government input was vital to identifying capabilities. According to the assessment, the average local capability score for all jurisdictions is 21.0, which falls into the limited capability ranking.

TABLE 7.7: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Jurisdiction

Overall Capability Score

Overall Capability Rating

ADAMS COUNTY 26 Moderate

Natchez 33 Moderate

AMITE COUNTY 23 Limited

Gloster 18 Limited

Liberty 17 Limited

FRANKLIN COUNTY 23 Limited

Bude 9 Limited

Meadville 9 Limited

Roxie 17 Limited

JEFFERSON COUNTY 24 Limited

Fayette 18 Limited

LAWRENCE COUNTY 22 Limited

Monticello 23 Limited

New Hebron 18 Limited

Silver Creek 18 Limited

LINCOLN COUNTY 24 Limited

Brookhaven 38 Moderate

PIKE COUNTY 27 Moderate

Magnolia 19 Limited

McComb 32 Moderate

Osyka 18 Limited

Summit 10 Limited



7:18

Jurisdiction

Overall Capability Score

Overall Capability Rating

WALTHALL COUNTY 22 Limited

Tylertown 18 Limited

WILKINSON COUNTY 24 Limited

Centreville 17 Limited

Crosby 17 Limited

Woodville 24 Limited

As previously discussed, one of the reasons for conducting a Capability Assessment is to examine local capabilities to detect any existing gaps or weaknesses within ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community hazard vulnerability. These gaps or weaknesses have been identified for each jurisdiction in the tables found throughout this section. The participating jurisdictions used the Capability Assessment as part of the basis for the Mitigation Actions that are identified in Section 9; therefore, each jurisdiction addresses their ability to expand on and improve their existing capabilities through the identification of their Mitigation Actions.

7.4.1 Linking the Capability Assessment with the Risk Assessment and the Mitigation Strategy

The conclusions of the Risk Assessment and Capability Assessment serve as the foundation for the development of a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. During the process of identifying specific mitigation actions to pursue, the RHMC considered not only each jurisdiction’s level of hazard risk, but also their existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk.

section 7 - mema district 7 regional hazard mitigation … · final 7:6 hazard mitigation plan: a...

Documents